Fountain Residents Raise Concerns Over Driveway Standards and ADA Enforcement Before City Council
Residents Greg and Laura Gennitti appeared before the Fountain City Council on Tuesday evening to raise concerns about what they described as inconsistent enforcement of residential driveway and sidewalk standards throughout their neighborhood.
The couple, who live on Fortman Avenue, say they are facing significant costs after being cited by the City of Fountain for failing to obtain a permit and for work that did not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards while expanding their driveway and attempting to repair a deteriorating section of sidewalk in front of their home.
According to Greg Gennitti, the issue began when the couple undertook a project to expand their driveway. He told council members that city ordinances were unclear regarding permit requirements for driveway extensions when he reviewed them in May. At the same time, the family sought assistance through the city's 50/50 sidewalk repair program to address damaged sidewalk adjacent to their property but says they did not initially receive a response from the city.
Following an inspection by the city's engineering department, the Gennittis were cited for not obtaining a permit and for failing to meet ADA requirements. They were subsequently informed that not only would the newly poured concrete need to be removed, but the entire driveway apron would need to be demolished and reconstructed to comply with ADA standards.
The couple's frustrations, however, extend beyond their own property.
During their remarks, Greg Gennitti argued that numerous driveways throughout the neighborhood, including projects completed or repaired in recent years, appear not to meet the same ADA standards now being applied to his property. He stated that an ADA consultant who reviewed the situation observed what was described as a "hodgepodge" of driveway designs throughout the area and identified challenges unique to the neighborhood's eight-inch curbs, which make ADA compliance more difficult than the six-inch curbs commonly found elsewhere.
Gennitti further claimed that city and county infrastructure projects have included driveway repairs that were not brought into ADA compliance. Among the examples cited were driveway work associated with a city-installed speed hump and a traffic circle project completed approximately four years ago. He questioned why homeowners are being held to standards that may not have been consistently applied by government entities themselves.
"For me personally, this situation is particularly concerning," Gennitti told the council, noting that he has been diagnosed with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy. He explained that one proposed ADA-compliant driveway design would create what he believes to be a tripping hazard for himself, his grandchildren, and other mobility-impaired individuals visiting his home.
The Gennittis requested that the city consider one of three options: waive the requirement to reconstruct the driveway, provide assistance through the 50/50 sidewalk program, or allow additional time for compliance while they save the funds necessary to complete the work properly.
City Engineer Todd Evans responded to the public comments, explaining that neither city staff nor the City Council has the authority to waive ADA compliance requirements. Evans stated that the most significant issue with the driveway is its slope, which measures approximately 15 percent where ADA standards require a maximum slope of two percent in the relevant area.
"We can't waive ADA requirements or compliance," Evans said. "It's just not something that we're allowed to do." He added that city staff are willing to work with the family on a reasonable timeline for compliance and are exploring whether funding remains available through the city's sidewalk cost-sharing program.
Evans also noted that many of the homes in the neighborhood were built in the 1970s, predating modern ADA standards, which have evolved since their adoption in the 1990s. He explained that some existing driveways may have been compliant when originally constructed or may have been completed without permits or city knowledge. Once city officials become aware of a potential violation, however, they are legally obligated to address it.
The discussion highlighted a broader concern shared by many homeowners in older communities throughout Colorado: how municipalities balance modern accessibility requirements with aging infrastructure and the financial burden placed on residents when improvements trigger compliance obligations.
For the Gennittis, the issue is not simply about one driveway. They say they are seeking consistent standards and fair treatment for all residents. The city, meanwhile, maintains that while it can work with homeowners on solutions and timelines, ADA compliance remains a legal requirement that cannot be ignored.
As conversations continue between the family and city staff, the matter has brought renewed attention to Fountain's aging infrastructure and the challenges municipalities face when applying modern accessibility standards to neighborhoods built decades before those standards existed.
Comments